Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Barriers for non-implementers of EU standard
HACCP,Fishery export to ASEAN countries
with potential role of MRAs
Wai Yee Lin(Ph.D)
Assistant Director
Ministry of Commerce
Myanmar @ UNCC, Bangkok, Thailand
Workshop on Analyzing NTM measures
UNESCAP , 26-27th April , 2017
Introduction
• Myanmar is traditionally an agrarian country exports a variety of
primary produces cultivated by a majority 70% of population
• Little investment in quality infrastructure during last 30 years
(UNIDO,2013). Trade-supported industries were not so successful in export
aimed at lucrative markets (ITC,2015)
• Image of Myanmar food products No strong brand image (e.g.
sea food) in international market (CBI,2012) however, neighboring
countries (China,Thailand, Bangladesh,etc.) are buyers and re-exporters of
Myanmar (fishery) products
• Only 14% of fishery firms equipped with EU standard HACCP in
Myanmar (Wai et.al,2016)
• So how about other 86% (non-implementers) ? How firms achieved
technical requirements [food safety management system-FSMS] at firm
level?What are the barriers , if they want to integrate the system?
• Reasons for non-implementation of HACCP are complicated than often
recognized and cannot be explained solely in terms of the ‘‘unwillingness’’
Source: Internet and DOF
Methodology -Materials and Method
Study Area States/Divisions
Yangon,Mon,Ayarwaddy,Rakhine,Tanintharyi
Target Group & Theme Fishery Firms:
- Non-implementers of EU standard HACCP (n=36)
- Food safety Management system at firm level
- Quality Control, Use of ICT, Future plan for integration
- Barriers for non-implementers
Data Collection Primary Data
Telephone Interviews using structured Questionnaires
Secondary Data
Available data, documents, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
Instrument 1st Data- structured questionnaires
2nd Data- scientific journals, Publication of relevant organizations,
Analytical Method Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis
Descriptive Statistical Method
Objectives of Study
1. To investigate barriers for non-implementers
of EU standard-HACCP in fishery processing
firms in Myanmar
2. To examine regional fishery trade with
potential role of MRAs for policy support
Result and Discussion
(1) Barriers for non-implementers of EU standard
HACCP
Coas
tal
Y
angon
Y
ango
n
Yangon (Jetty) other 4 states/Regions–Coastal
Processing Plants in Yangon
[Processor–cum-Exporter or Processor]
Raw from SEA
Exporters
Raw
Collectio
n
Pro
cessing
Expo
rt
China, ASEAN,ASIA, etc.
Mark
ets
5
3
1
4
2 Main Markets
(1)China only
(2) AEAN countries only
(3)Japan only
(4) ASEAN,other countries,China
(5) Domestic (ex:to Yangon)
(%)
19.4
0.0
8.3
52.8
19.4
Processing Plants in Myanmar [2016-2017]
Table: Types of Processing Plants in Myanmar in 2016-2017
States / Division
Classification
total Cold store and
Processing plants Surimi
Fish-
meal
Dry-
prawns
Prawn-
shell
dust
Canning
Yangon 63 2 4 - - - 69
Tanintharyi 10 2 5 2 - - 19
Ayeyarwaddy 8 - 1 - - - 9
Mon 5 - - - - - 5
Rakhine 8 - 1 - - - 9
Shan 1 - - - - - 1
Total 95 4 11 2 - - 112
Source: Data of DOF
Variables %
Year of establishment
(1) before 1995
(2) 1995-2000
(3) after 2000
8.3
44.4
47.2
ISO certificate
(1)Yes
(2) No
5.6
94.4
Firm Size
(1) less than 50
(2) 50-100
(3) more than 100
26.5
14.7
58.8
Ownership
(1)National
(2) J.V
(3)Foreigners
91.7
5.6
2.8
Type of Business(Plants)
(1)Processor cum exporter
(2)Processor
36.1
63.9
Main Markets
(1)China only
(2) AEAN countries only
(3)Japan only
(4) ASEAN,China,Other countries
(5) Domestic (ex:to Yangon)
19.4
0.0
8.3
52.8
19.4
Foreigner experts appointment
(1) Yes
(2) No
8.6
91.4
Buyers’ Quality control(Person)
(1)Yes(visit before buying)
(2) No
60
40
• great majority of labor(73%) were women, no
specific requirement for processing workforce, even
though specific requirements needed for managerial
staffs
• many of them(89%) of firms did not had foreigner
experts. However, (60%) of them said that Buyer
Q.C came and inspected before making contract
• Nearly 2/3 (66.7%) had internal quality control staffs
• Nearly half (44%) knew safety and quality
requirements (of markets) with their experience.
However, more than one third (36%) reported that
they knew detailed requirements from their buyers or
agents
• Use of ITC---(86%) reported that they used many
ways such as email, fax, local agents to accept orders
• 86% had cold store at their factories but the capacity
of cold-stores varied and the largest one is
6000Metric Ton
• 39% said they have the plan to integrate for export to
EU, 39% also did not have the plan to export to
EU,only 22% replied that they were not sure about
the future plan
Result and Discussion
Barriers for non-implementers • Financial (Barrier)
– 92% had no barrier regarding financial and only 8% responded that they
had financial problem.
• Scale and scope of change (Barrier)
– 33% saw that the scale and scope of change needed were barriers if they
want to apply for EU markets, most of them (67%) did not think that it
was a barriers.
• Low Priority (Barrier)
– A few (11%) agreed that application to be registered in national EU
approved factory list is low priority but 89% denied it for other reason
• Questionable appropriateness (Barrier)
– Questionable appropriateness is not regarded as a barrier for 89% of the
firms
• Technical (Barrier)
– 25 % considered as a barrier in integration needed for export to EU
markets because, meanwhile 75% did not consider it as a barrier
Result and Discussion
(2) Regional Fishery Industry and Trade with potential
role of MRAs
ASEAN countries: Export/Import in 2015
Brunei
DarussalamCambodia Indonesia Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Laos Thailand Viet Nam
Export value US$ Million 0.7 4.2 529.4 110.8 64.5 214.7 69.1 0.1 198.7 71.8
Imports value US$ Million 16 1 29.2 246.6 4.8 33.1 317.4 1.5 193.4 845
529.4
64.5
214.7 198.7
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Val
ue
in U
S$
Mii
llio
ns
ASEAN countries competing for investment attraction in Fishery Industry
Source:http://www.investmentmap.org/competitorCountry.aspx?selCtry=MMR&selInds=050&selOpt=&selYear=#
ASEAN countries: Fishery Export in 2015
529.4
214.7 198.7
110.8
71.8 69.1 64.5
4.2 0.7 0.1 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Indonesia Philippines Thailand Malaysia Viet Nam Singapore Myanmar Cambodia Brunei
Darussalam
Laos
US
$ m
illi
on
Export (Value) in 2015
Indonesia
41%
Philippines
17%
Thailand
15%
Malaysia
8%
Viet Nam
5%
Singapore
5%
Myanmar
5% Cambodia
0%
Brunei
Darussalam
0% Laos
4%
Export (value)
Export (Value)of Myanmar Fishery Products to ASEAN
countries
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Brunei
Darussalam 1453 2471 0 3 55 10 540 343 90
Cambodia 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indonesia 897 469 1507 2245 1559 1800 974 186 103 888 1503
Malaysia 26487 30892 29570 29622 31600 35167 39595 38529 38183 35679 34117 37034
Philippines 35 82 7 0 26 15 20 19 0 0 27 88
Singapore 20059 21610 17818 17034 14478 13277 11594 11956 7458 7619 5969
Laos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thailand 55979 54375 46197 73886 72172 65823 61490 45913 32159 26186 20785 81942
Viet Nam 4632 1369 1224 1740 6482 3378 4380 6121 4809 5002 1780
ASEAN
Aggregation 109547 111268 96323 124527 126317 119463 118108 102734 83252 75717 64271 119064
Total 245851 261124 255449 306307 299950 303065 313516 349373 359429 431987 315072 257001
Source: http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx
Brunei Darussalam 0%
Cambodia 0% Indonesia
1%
Malaysia 33%
Philippines 0%
Singapore 13%
Laos 0%
Thailand 49%
Viet Nam 4%
Share of Export to ASEAN countries
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Myanmar Fishery Export to ASEAN countries
Viet Nam
Thailand
Laos
Singapore
Philippines
Malaysia
Indonesia
Cambodia
Brunei Darussalam
Myanmar Fishery Export to ASEAN countries
Source : Data from trademap ,http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx
Years
Myanmar-Export to World (with HS code)
Product
code Product label
Myanmar's exports (value) to world
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
'0306 Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen,
dried, salted or in brine, ... 502896 715816 782573 869589 1224474 999064
'0304 Fish fillets and other fish meat, whether or not minced, fresh,
chilled or frozen 260160 335202 380064 397718 483432 536833
'0305 Fish, fit for human consumption, dried, salted or in brine;
smoked fish, fit for human consumption, ... 110420 109384 127313 117404 110071 116511
'0307 Molluscs, fit for human consumption, even smoked, whether in
shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, ... 351566 458782 439053 566625 600502 614155
'0302 Fish, fresh or chilled (excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of
heading 0304) 373046 408042 418385 441130 447351 426337
'0308 Aquatic invertebrates other than crustaceans and molluscs, live,
fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, ... 29497 35574 41246 43265
'0303 Frozen fish (excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of heading
0304) 2460811 3130093 3409749 3315871 2848009 2690643
'0301 Live fish 79074 79089 81399 67957 64969 57907
Source :ITC calculations based on UN COMTRADE statistics.
'0306 16%
'0304 7%
'0305 2%
'0307 9%
'0302 8%
'0308 1%
'0303 56%
'0301 1%
Average export share
ASEAN countries: Import in 2015
845
317.4
246.6
193.4
33.1 29.2 16 4.8 1.5 1 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Viet Nam Singapore Malaysia Thailand Philippines Indonesia Brunei
Darussalam
Myanmar Laos Cambodia
US
$ i
n m
illi
on
Import (value) in 2015
Viet Nam
50%
Singapore
19%
Malaysia
15%
Thailand
11%
Philippines
2%
Indonesia
2%
Brunei
Darussalam
1% Myanmar
0% Laos
0% Cambodia
0%
Import (value)
Product
Code Product label
Imported
value in
2011
Imported
value in
2012
Imported
value in
2013
Imported
value in
2014
Imported
value in
2015
'0306 Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled,
frozen, dried, salted or in brine, ... 804 887 636 2125 3189
'0303 Frozen fish (excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of
heading 0304) 1015 730 1179 1464 2536
'0304 Fish fillets and other fish meat, whether or not minced, fresh,
chilled or frozen 96 835 1498 1371 2536
'0302 Fish, fresh or chilled (excluding fish fillets and other fish
meat of heading 0304) 11 149 26 662 1014
'0307 Molluscs, fit for human consumption, even smoked, whether
in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, ... 133 282 723 983 369
'0305 Fish, fit for human consumption, dried, salted or in brine;
smoked fish, fit for human consumption, ... 20 14 14 81 205
'0301 Live fish 17 30 39 43 60
'0308 Aquatic invertebrates other than crustaceans and molluscs,
live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, ... 0 13 2 4 0
Myanmar-Import from World (with HS code)
Source :ITC calculations based on UN COMTRADE statistics.
'0306
30%
'0303
27%
'0304
24%
'0302
7%
'0307
10%
'0305
1%
'0301
1%
'0308
0%
Average Import Share
MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement/arrangement
• Article 19 of AEC calls upon harmonize standard,regulations and conformity assessment procedures using international practices such as …(Asean,2016)
• Chapter 7 of ATIGA requires AMS to harmonize their standard with international standard for removing unnecessary barriers (ATIGA)
• Principle 6 of ASEAN food safety policy (2016) encourages that AMS should establish MRAs and equivalence arrangements with other AMS for facilitation economic integration(ASEAN,2016)
• MRA – a voluntary agreement between government conformity assessment bodies. It simply means 2 or more parties mutually accept each other’s rule
• 2 Types of MRAs from the point of view of import country (Pongsapitch, 2011)
– Type 1 – equivalence of both standard and inspection/certification while accepting export countries’ certificate/certificate mark
– Type 2 _ different standard but equivalence of inspection /certification system while accepting export countries’ certificate based on the import country’s standard
• Type 2 is the MRA made between EU and other 3rd /export countries including Myanmar (e.g.(developed and developing)countries having different standards)
Source: Better training for safer foods BTSF held in Italy (Andersen,2012)
How EU and Export Countries Mutually Arrange [Type1/2]
Vertical Integration of Food Control System [Export-CA]
• Vertical integration is a strategy used to gain control over its suppliers or distributors, increase power in marketplace, reduce transaction costs and secure supplies or distribution channels (Jurevicius, 2013)
• Vertical integration controls products supply chain from one end to another (Stephen G. Newman,2009)
• Myanmar-MCA and EU-CA are mutually recognized. MCA is delegated and gets all necessary power in controlling supply chain on behalf of EU-CA
• Myanmar fishery sector is at the second stage of Vertical Integration
21
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3 Stage 3. Food Chain Approach + Continuous
Monitoring+ Information Asymmetry Reduction+
Transparency
- Effective utilization of Food control system by using
RAPID ALERT SYSTEM regionally, Internationally
(RASFF of EU, ASEAN Rapid Alert System , etc.)
- USA has its own USA-FDA Alert too
Stage 2 Food Chain Approach + Continuous
Monitoring + Information Asymmetry Reduction
- CA starts its function by mutual recognitions with
other countries’ CA at G-G , but effectiveness is still
the ongoing process USA , Japan don’t follow this
mutual recognition step but practices TQM system in
domestic food industry by adoption of HACCP and
import countries require to do so
Stage1 Not with food chain approach
- No Competent authority CA for specific food sector
and checking made just before export,due to the
willing buyers’ demand but with the low price
Source: Author
Figure:Vertical integration at government level
Integration for fulfilling requirements of MRAs in Markets
Import
Country/
Markets
2nd stage of Vertical integration
3rd stage of
Vertical
Integration
Number of Myanmar
fishery factory approved by
import country’s CA in
2016 (2015) Harmonization Verification Visit
Mutual
Recognition
between CAs
Alert system
Web-sites
1 EU Required Required Required RASFF 18 (20)
2 Japan Not
necessary
Not
necessary
Not
necessary - *
3 USA Not
necessary
Not
necessary
Not
necessary US-FDA
[exporters/factory can
apply directly to US-
FDA]
4 China Required Required Required CNCA-
AQSIQ 76 (78)
5 Vietnam Required Not yet Required NAFIQAD 31 (24)
6 ASEAN at preparation
stage Not yet Not yet
ARASFF
(ASEAN
alert)
*
7 GCC
countries
Not
necessary
Not
necessary
Not
necessary - *
Source: Author
Approved (by EU-MRAs) Establishments in Region
China Vietnam India ThailandIndonesi
aTaiwan Japan
Philippin
es
Banglad
eshMalaysia
Myanma
r
Singapor
eBrunei
Cambodi
aLaos
Total (establishments) 1026 486 390 230 212 204 151 138 67 22 18 5 2 0 0
PP for Aquaculture 297 415 275 137 105 13 6 13 67 13 0 0 2 0 0
PP for Wild Caught 753 71 57 81 98 22 36 116 0 9 18 5 0 0 0
ZV Freezing Vessels 305 0 0 0 9 169 103 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CS Cold Store 16 0 58 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RV Refeer Vessel 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FV Factory Vessel 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Qu
an
tity
Approved Fishery Establishments List of Regional Countries
Brunei
0%
Cambodia
0%
Indonesia
19%
Malaysia
2%
Myanmar
2%
Philippines
12%
Singapore
0% Laos
0%
Thailand
21%
Vietnam
44%
Share of Approved Establishment [in ASEAN countries]
Source:Data from europa -https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sanco/traces/output/noneulistsPerActivityen.htm#
Export [Value (million US $) ]to major import countries
1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-
2000 2000-2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003 2003-2004
2004-
2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
China 14.37 56.33 54.53 66.79 86.7 128.58 18.98 124.77 105.84 130.66 148.72 106.15 105.08
Thailand 41.32 31.19 15.27 22.67 40.6 25.42 8.778 29.84 61.74 109.88 55.985 76.978 99.229
Singapore 45.01 40.49 32.41 27.03 16.86 22.83 8.406 10.64 17.25 30.434 70.363 119.04 96.257
Malaysia 6.41 5.69 10.2 14.72 13.57 27.13 33.568 45.93 20.54 21.103 86.96 41.26 36.127
Japan 17.62 21.13 20.48 24.1 23.32 30.89 15.947 44.36 46.03 50.447 42.085 23.4 16.908
Kuwait 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.427 30.026 31.844 52.964
Hongkong 24.53 18.98 16.97 20.5 16.91 14.47 17.732 14.3 16.78 13.967 12.664 0 0
Bangladesh 0 0 0 3.72 7.33 10.62 0 11.98 14.55 22.36 27.003 18.686 16.257
Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.83 17 20.126 35.146 21.344 23.272
UAE 0 0 2.95 0 4.55 5.26 5.371 9.73 20.76 17.528 13.902 13.872 16.784
USA 1.65 0 7.38 12.89 16.06 17.67 12.634 0 0 0 0 0 0
U.K 2.66 5.94 4.74 5.52 6.98 8.49 6.678 6.83 8.38 0 0 10.674 12.427
Australia 4.3 4 4.56 6.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vietnam 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.951 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Data from department of Fishery
Conclusion
• non-implementers did not have specific barrier if they want to integrate for EU markets (as barriers for non-implementers were not statistically significant)
• Non-implementers’ export was mainly regional rather than global so far, but they have lion share (86%)of fishery producers in Myanmar
• Type 2 MRA made between Myanmar and EU for fishery trade
• Share of approved establishments(Myanmar) is only 2% among ASMs, as development is still infancy
Abstract
• This survey investigated barriers for non-implementers of EU standard HACCP system in fishery processing plants of Myanmar so as to examine what hindered them from taking part in global value chain. It was found that one fourth of respondents did not export to EU markets because of technical barrier.More than 90% did not have financial problem for integration of their production systems to be able to export to EU markets. Not more than one third saw the scale and scope of change as a barrier, if they needed integration for EU markets.Moreover,a positive strong correlation between the technical barrier and the scale and scope of change was found with r value 0.816,n=36,p=0.01.China was main market for one fifth of respondents and ASEAN member states and China were main markets for more than half of them. It can be concluded that fishery export of Myanmar so far was mostly regional rather than global and that is one of the reasons why the non-implementers did not integrate their production system to EU standard HACCP system in Myanmar.
• Jel Code: Q17,Q18
Barriers Yes No Others
1 Uncertainty about potential benefits from HACCP 8 33 53
2 Perception that current food safety controls are sufficient 16 22 61
3 Tendency to learn from others’ experience before acting 11 30 58
4 Uncertainty about whether future regulatory requirements met by
EU rules
33 66 0
5 Perception that firm’s sale of operation is too small for HACCP 2 36 61
6 Perception that HACCP is not suitable for the firm 8 30 61
7 Perception that HACCP would reduce the flexibility of the
operation
5 27 66
8 Perception that it goes against our traditional methods 38 61 0
9 Wide scale of facilities upgrading required for HACCP
implementation
27 11 61
10 Scale and scope of changes needed prior to adopting HACCP 27 11 61
11 Overwhelmed by things to be done to adopt HACCP 11 25 61
12 Food safety investment being a low priority 16 22 61
13 Relative importance of other investments (suggesting that this is
associated with low priority)
13 22 63
14 Difficulty in obtaining external budgetary funding 2 36 61
15 Internal budgetary constraints 5 33 61